So many people seem to really struggle with the idea of anything improbable just happening, they absolutely need to find a reason that it wasn't improbable anymore once it happens.
The series of consecutive improbable events required for you to type that to me is so mind bogglingly implausible as to be functionally impossible, but to then act like it’s all so obviously meaningless is the cherry on top lol
Check out the thread you might find some interesting arguments being made for or against
See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeably.
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities.
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
[final paragraph]
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.
So many people seem to really struggle with the idea of anything improbable just happening, they absolutely need to find a reason that it wasn't improbable anymore once it happens.
One improbable event is happenstance
Two improbable events is a coincidence
Three improbably events is a design
The series of consecutive improbable events required for you to type that to me is so mind bogglingly implausible as to be functionally impossible, but to then act like it’s all so obviously meaningless is the cherry on top lol
Check out the thread you might find some interesting arguments being made for or against
See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.